
THE STUDY 



History and SocioLoaY. 



BY 

FRANK W. BLACKMAE, Ph.D., 

Professor op History and Sociology in the University ok Kansas. 



L/ 



4&i> 



TOPEKA. 

KANSAS PUBLISHING HOUSE : CLIFFORD 0. BAKEE, STATE PEINTEB. 
1890. 



THE STUDT 



.7" 



History and SociOLoaY. 



BY 



v^r 



FRANK W. BLACKMAR, Ph. D., 

Professor of History and Sociology in the University of Kansas. 



T O P E K A . 

KANSAS PUBLISHING HOUSE : CLIFFORD C. BAKEE, STATE PBINTEK. 
1890. 



Topical Analysis. 



SELECTED REFERENCES. 

INTRODUCTION. 

THE NATURE OF HISTORY. 

The complex nature of history. 

History as prose narrative. 

Rhetorical history. 

The earliest conception of historj". 

The scientific conception of history. 

The relation of historical study to 
natural science. 

The philosophic conception of his- 
tory. 

Historyas the education of humanity. 

History deals with the present as well 
as the past. 

THE SCOPE OF HISTORY. 

No satisfactory comprehensive defini- 
tion of history. 

The narration of events. 

History as politics. 

Practical polilics not necessarily in- 
cluded. 

Comparative politics or institutional 
history. 

Tlie science of government. 

Comparative jurisprudence. 

Economic politics. 

Comparative religions. 

Anthropology. 

Ethnology. 

Geography and history. 

Chronology a small but essential part 
of history. 

The philosophy of history. 

Historical criticism. 

Numismatics. 

Sociology as a branch of history. 

Social statistics. 

THE RELATION OF HISTORY TO 
OTHER SCIENCES. 

The relation to philology. 
The relation of history to law. 



Art and architecture as aids to the 
study of history. 

THE PROVINCE AND THE STUDY OF 
SOCIOLOGY. 

The progress of sociological studies. 
The general use of the term sociology. 
The specific use of the term. 
Analysis of the study of sociology. 
Sociology as a philosophy of society. 
Historical and descriptive sociology. 
Practical or applied sociology. 
The history of sociology. 
Suggested course of study. 

METHODS OF WRITING HISTORY. 
The old style of writing history. 
The reformed style of writing history. 
The tendency toward social and eco- 
nomic life. 
Specialization in history-writing. 

METHODS OF STUDYING HI.STORY. 

Recent progress in historical instruc- 
tion. 

The topical method. 

The scientific aspects of the study of 
history. 

The modern seminary. 

BENEFITS OF HISTORICAL STUDY. 

Excellent study for discipline and 
culture. 

History deals with man, the greatest 
study of mankind. 

The study of the historical sciences 
prepares the student for active life. 

Especial attention to the problems of 
society necessary. 

A state university should give atten- 
tion to those branches that espe- 
cially fit the youth for citizenship. 

THE STUDY OF HISTORY PREPARA- 
TORY TO ENTRANCE INTO THE 
UNIVERSITY. 



Selected References. 



Adams, C. K. — On methods of Teaching History. 
Adams, C. K. — Recent Historical worlc in the Colleges and Universi- 
ties of Europe and America. 
Adams, H. B. — Special Methods of Historical Study. 
Adams, H. B. — ^New Methods of Study in History. 
Allen, W. F. — Grades and Topics in Historical Study. 
Bernheim, Ernst — Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode. 
EuRGESS, J. W. — The Methods of Historical Study in Columbia College. 
Comte, Auguste — The Positive Philosophy. 
Crocker, J. H. — Problems in American Society. 
De Greef, Guillaume — Introduction a la Sociologie. 
Diester\vi<:g, G. — Instruction in History. 
Droysen, Joh. Gust. — Grundriss der Historick. 
Ely, R. T. — Introduction to Political Economy. 
Ely, R. T.^The Past and the Present of Political Economy. 
Emerton, E. — The Historical Seminary in American Teacliing. 
Freeman, E. A. — Methods of Historical Study. 
Flint, Robert — The Philosophy of History. 
GiDDiNGS, F. H. — Sociology and Political Economy. 
GiDDiNGS, F. H. — The Province of Sociology. 
Hall, G. Stanly — Methods of Teacliing and Studying History. 
LoTZE, Hermann — Microcosmus. 
LORENZ, Ottoker — Geschichtsvvissenschaft. 
Maiuienbrkcher, Wilhelm — Geschichte und Politik. 
Schaeffle, a. E. — Bau und Leben des Socialen Korpers. 
Small, Albion W. — Introduction to tlie Science of Sociology. 
Smith, R. M. — Statistics and Economics. 
Spencer, Herbert — Principles of Sociology. 
Spencer, Herbert — The Study of Sociology. 
Ward, Lester F. — Dynamic Sociology. 
Warner, A. G. — Charities: The Relation of the State, the City, and 

the Individual to Modern Philanthropic Work. 
Wright, Carroll D. — Statistics in Colleges. 



Introduction. 



To the Students and Teachers of History in the State of Kansas: 

When the Regents of the University of Kansas formed 
the Department of History and Sociology, it may have seemed 
to some that two irrelevant subjects were linked together; 
that what was intended for a step in advance was, after all, 
but a mis-directed innovation ; and that as no other university 
in the United States had at that time an established chair of 
this name, it was at least an experiment in classification of 
studies. But a close analysis of the included subjects will 
show, not only that History and Sociology are companion 
studies, but that the action of the Regents was in accordance 
with the spirit of modern education, and a bold assertion of 
the progress which historical studies have been making in our 
best universities during the past few years. Although the 
historical sciences do not, at present, occupy the prominence 
in education which their importance properly and rightfully 
demands, no other group of studies has passed through such 
great changes during the past twenty years. These changes 
are to be observed in the grouping of studies, in methods of 
instruction and study, in a constant determination of historical 
study toward the life of society, and a strong tendency to 
make such study a living, serviceable part of every well-regu- 
lated university — serviceable, not only as a means of culture 

(5) 



TJlc Study of History and Sociology. 



and discipline, but in especially fitting the individual for the 
conduct of social and political life, thus directly benefitting 
him and the community at large. There is a feeling that the 
historical sciences must furnish a strong suj)port to govern- 
ment and administration, and thus demonstrate their imme- 
diate utility to society, just as in the past the natural sciences 
have demonstrated their necessity by their immediate relation 
to the industries of the country. 

In some institutions these changes have been sudden, in 
others slow and laborious, owing to lack of resources and 
other obstacles even more formidable. In this respect it may 
be said that a young, growing institution like our own, with 
comparatively few resources, yet working in a new field with 
a special purpose, has an advantage in outlining a policy, over 
older and wealthier institutions; it has the advantage of the 
experience of other institutions without the obstructions which 
essentially arise on account of traditional usage. It may 
more readily adjust its methods and its course of study to the 
needs of society. Nor must it' be iuferred that this adjust- 
ment is a transient affair, pandering to the clamors of popular 
opinion, for a university must on the one hand be a leader in 
thought and opinion; on the other, it must supply the de- 
mands of higher education, both in kind and in quantity. 
. And especially should a State university strengthen those 
branches of instruction that directly aid in the general bene- 
fits of society at large — the welfare of the body politic. In 
so doing it performs one of its essential functions. 

It will be seen by the following analysis that our own 



hitroduction. 



institution in respect to historical study is in the line of 
progress evinced by the foremost institutions of this country, 
and as far as the establishment of the courses of study in this 
department is concerned, it may be said that a possibility has 
been made for an important work. It will be further observed 
that the study of history is rapidly tending toward the study 
of sociology, and that the latter furnishes a strong support 
and full complement to the former. Having the same field 
of investigation and the same ultimate ends, they are essen- 
tially complementary studies, and should work together in the 
solution of social problems. This new line of work if prop- 
erly supported in labor-power and materials, will eventually 
prove most useful to the institution and to the State. 

It is hoped that the following analysis will tend to dispel 
two erroneous ideas in regard to historical studies: First, that 
they may as well be carried on outside of the university 
without especial assistance, as in the university under the 
direction of experienced instructors; secondly, that the his- 
torical studies are more easily pursued than other branches of 
learning, and consequently students enter them for the sake 
of obtaining their "grades" with little effort. In regard to 
the first proposition let it be clearly affirmed, that though 
some persons may obtain a considerable knowledge of history 
by reading it as they would a novel, for a thorough, system- 
atic university course there is as much need of wise direction 
in these branches as in the most complex study in natural 
science, language, or any other branch of knowledge. In 
regard to the second point, it has been fully demonstrated that 



TJie Study of History and Sociology. 



historical studies furnish ample opportunity for thorough 
discipline and hard work, for in fact nothing in history of 
permanent value may be obtained without these. If students 
have entered this course for the sake of high grades and an 
easy time, it will not take long to prove their error. Let those 
who enter here for the sake of high grades rather than for 
an earnest pursuit of the truth, abandon all hope. But I take 
it that there are none such. It is to be hoped that the study 
of history in this institution, of which this department repre- 
sents only a part, will lose none of its former efficiency, but 
will continue to develop thoroughness and completeness, and, 
as heretofore, be supported by earnest, faithful students. 



The Study of History and Sociology.* 



THE NATURE OF HISTORY. 



Simple as history may seem iu its popular sense, its nature 
is really complex, its province wide and its functions various. 
Consequently it is necessary to devote a little time to the dis- 
cussion of the meaning of history before entering upon the 
apparently more practical subject of the methods of historical 
study. Considering the variety of notions of history as set 
forth by individuals or inherent in the different methods of 
treating the subject, it is essential that the student should be 
well grounded in the real nature and scope of history before 
entering upon a course of systematic study. And the first 
and most common notion with which he is likely to meet 
is that "history is the prose narrative of past events." 
This is the literary conception of history, and the one most 
commonly given to those requiring a definition. But this, 
iu its narrow view, must exclude many phases of history 
which continually arise as the student proceeds to investigate, 
for history, like other branches of knowledge, expands with 
the growth of civilization until no single definition will ex- 
press its full and varied meaning. There is not only a con- 
stantly expanding national life, a development of laws 

*This lecture was read before the students of History and Sociology in the Uni- 
versity of Kansas, January, 1890; since that time it has been somewhat elaborated, 
and will be used in its present form as an introduction to the courses for the coming 
academic year. Its intention is to set forth clearly the nature, scope and methods of 
historical and sociological study and investigation. The pamphlet has been addressed 
to the teachers and students of the State with an earnest desire to quicken the interest 
already manifested in the studies of which it treats, and with a hope of enlarging their 
field of usefulness. 

(9) 



lo TJic Study of History and Sociology. 

institutions and social customs that must be recorded, but 
there is also a subjective development of history consequent 
upon the accumulation, classiiicatiou and comparison of" ma- 
terials of which the hhtorij of history is the proper representa- 
tion. With this view, the simple literary conception itself 
expands so that it embraces all of the records of man on 
earth, wdiether of prose, poetry, song, or inscriptions, so long 
as they are written records. Indeed, it would embrace the 
testimony which the earth yields of the presence of man ; the 
relics of mounds and tumuli as well as the life-picture of 
prehistoric man. Knowledge represents one of the elements 
of history; and as such the inscriptions on monuments, the 
arrow-head and the stone ax and the foot-prints on the rocks 
are historical evidence. The term "history," in this concep- 
tion, is vast in its inclusions; the natural as well as the polit- 
ical and social life of the people, even the records of the 
evolution of culture, fall within its scope. But it is main- 
tained by those who advocate the strictly literary definition 
that a })eople has no history until sufficient evidence is given 
to furnish a prose narrative; that disconnected and independ- 
ent facts do not represent history. In reply to this, it may 
be said that isolated facts are the elements of history, and it 
is the business of the historical student to search out these 
facts and put them in tiieir proper relation to the national life 
and the life of humanity in general. The fault is with the 
term "narrative," which must exclude much that is descrip- 
tive and comparative. Political science and the history of 
institutions in their processes are not obliged to put on the 
shape of a story to be considered as parts of history. His- 
tory, too, deals with the present as well as the past; wherever 
man lives and acts, there are the records, and there is history. 
There is a still narrower sense in which the literary con- 
ception is taken, in which rhetoric plays an important part: 



The Nature of History. 1 1 

it is as if history were the product of the peu aud the imag- 
ination of mankind, and the historical writer a creative 
genius writing stories for the sake of the reader, instead of 
presenting facts for the elucidation of truth. History thus 
becomes an evolution of mind-force combined with a series 
of pictures of past events made graphic by the genius of the 
writer. Those having this view read history as they would 
a poem or a novel, for the literary and emotional effect. 
In such minds history poses as an art of expression rather 
than as an independent branch of human knowledge. The 
"prose narrative" aud the rhetorical effect may enter into the 
proper representation of history, but it must be denied that 
they in any way represent the full and proper notion of history. 
History, like science, has a scope as wide as nature — one deal- 
ing with the principles of truth, the other in their application 
to humanity. But who would think of considering science 
as embracing what a few persons have found out and written 
about? Its limits are as broad as nature, and many of its 
truths are yet to be demonstrated. So, too, the limits of his- 
tory are as wide as man's contact with nature, aud its truth 
is being evolved so long as the activity of man continues. 
History is a universal notion as large as the notion of nature 
Among the earliest conceptions of history is that of He- 
rodotus, represented in the oft-quoted ''historia," meaning to 
learn by investigation. This universal conception may as 
well have been applied to any other branch of learning as to 
the records of man, and is in fact especially adapted to mod- 
ern sciences, of whatsoever kind. The "historia" of the 
records of man and the "historia" of the records of nature 
each has its place in the modern university. Applied spe- 
cifically, this term represents the spirit of modern learn- 
ing, whether of history, of philosophy, or of science. Yet 
we find that Herodotus wrote to please the Greeks, and it 



12 The Study of History and Sociology. 



would seem that there was something more in his philosophy 
than the simple discovery of truth : it must be presented in 
a pleasing style. We find later writers leaving out of con- 
sideration the spirit of investigation, and presenting in a 
graphic manner that part of history which would be pleasing 
to the people and gratifying to national pride. Thus Livy 
took what he found without question as to the truth of it, 
and then elaborated the material in his own way. It is 
needless to remark that he became a most charming story- 
teller. History was thus written for its effect — for its pleas- 
ing surprises and for its moral lessons. It was for a long 
time purely national, until Polybius made an attempt to 
make it universal and morally instructive to all nations. 

The modern study of history has adopted all that is best 
in the old definition. It includes, in its fundamental concep- 
tion, the two ideas there embodied: knowledge, truth, under- 
standing on the one hand, and research on the other. These 
are the moments of historical scieuce. With these funda- 
mental principles are classification, comparison, and analysis, 
and these aj)plied to the institutions and the social life of man 
constitute what are known as the elements of historical sci- 
ences. It is through its methods of study and presentation 
that history claims its rightful position as a legitimate science. 
It has adopted methods of scientific investigation. The sci- 
entific conception of history presents it in the same light as 
other branches of science, holding that it is composed of 
truth, of laws of development, and of classified knowledge. 
This conception differs somewhat from the ordinary concep- 
tion of science. While the marks of historical science are, in 
the main, identical with those of other sciences, there are cer- 
tain fundamental characteristics which must differentiate the 
historical sciences from others, as for example the natural, in 
the exact use of the term science. No doubt that the his- 



The Nature of History. 1 3 



torical branches are in the form of developing sciences, but 
the terra science must admit of a broader signification than 
formerly; and, indeed, the term science is, after all, a relative 
one, and changes with each decade. For example : the science 
now called astronomy is not the science called astronomy of 
centuries past, though it has changed but little within the 
past few years. But in fundamental ideas natural science 
deals with universals, while history deals with particulars. 
Natural science comes directly in contact with nature for the 
investigation of its laws, while history must come directly in 
contact with the records of humanity for its investigation. 
There is not, however, so much of a distinction as there seems 
to be in respect to the two processes, for history deals with 
the present of human action as well as the past, and the ordi- 
nary student of natural science must spend a large part of 
his time in studying the records of classified scientific knowl- 
edge wrought out by others before he comes directly in con- 
tact with the forces of nature. His laboratory is nature, but 
he may demonstrate the same laws by the use of the same 
material that others have employed. The laboratory of the 
historical student is the records of the past, the accumulated 
material of the contact of man with nature, and the present 
living humanity in collective society. But he may not go 
through the same process with humanity in the discovery of 
existing laws as does the student with the material of natural 
science. It is true that the investigation, the observation, the 
comparison and the classification of knowledge, as well as the 
derived truth, are there, but the nature of the derived truth is 
different. But as we observe that history tends more towards 
sociology, as in fact sociology now functions as an historical 
science, we must recognize that history is rapidly taking posi- 
tion as a science which deals with universals; for sociology, 
while dealing with universal types and factors and represent- 



14 The Study of History and Sociology. 

ing laws of development, Las still the same subject to deal 
with as history, uamely, human society. Though it may deal 
with it in a diiferent way and leave the individual to history, 
it cannot ignore the individual any more than history can 
ignore the general. Sociology, in dealing with universal 
types and laws of development, with society- forms, society- 
building, and society-functions, is a great auxiliary to history, 
and in turn must look to history for its material on which to 
operate. In its fundamental characteristics, then, we lind 
that history in its broadest sense, including all of the so- 
called historical sciences, tends to be more and more worthy 
the name of science. 

History in its modern conception includes the collection of 
materials, the arrangement and classification of the same, and 
the interpretation of events and their placement in the dif- 
ferent categories of facts. This further implies a knowledge 
by investigation, careful analysis, and comparison to show the 
laws of the development of tiie institutions of a single people, 
or as far as possible, the laws of the development of human 
institutions under certain conditions. In these points its 
correspondence with natural science is clear. Out of the in- 
terpretation of history has evolved many of the })riuciples of 
historical science, such as classified knowledge, established 
principles, and rational methods. And here as elsewhere in 
the range of science, we recognize method as an essential 
feature of classification and research. If a student at school 
studies natural science, the greater part of his time is taken up 
with the method of procedure, and only so because the method 
of classification and the method of investigation are after all 
the chief elements of science; tor science is a process as much 
as a thing. If science in the objective be considered a system- 
atized body of truths, it still involves in this capacity an 
accurate comparison and generalization of facts, and if we con- 



The Nature of History. 1 5 

sider it subjectively it becomes a process or a generalizatiou of 
processes, and treats more of method that of fact. The 
objects and the nature of history are "to know, to explain and 
to understand," and in this, science agrees in its objects. In 
methods the historical process agrees with the scientific " in- 
vestigating to understand." "DasWesender historischen 
Methode ist forschend zu verstehen." (Droysen.) 

The philosophic conception of history tends even farther 
toward placing it on an independent basis. It is a favorite 
notion of some to represent history as developing continually 
in human consciousness, and thus to make it entirely subjective ; 
they hold that history is being made constantly; that it is as 
much of the past as of the present, and that each individual 
contributes a part to the general whole. But in regard to this 
it may be said that, though there is a continuity of thought as 
well as a continuity of history, and that the "current of human 
experience" flows on, it is the process of interpretation that is 
to be referred to human consciousness. Each individual iu 
his power of thought represents the past as well as the present, 
and contributes something of life to the general whole of 
human development. The stamp of individual minds in in- 
terpretation, instruction and presentation, contributes to the 
making of history. It is broader than books, broader than 
literature of the subject; it has the power to expand with the 
reflective powers of each generation of individuals; "it con- 
sists in knowledge not in books." This knowledge involves 
the self-knowledge of humanity; an unfolding panorama of 
self-consciousness. 

It is this subjective consideration of history that led to the 
saying that history is the "education of humanity." The 
individual relation of one person to humanity at large repre- 
sents the onward movement called progress. The current of 
human experience is continuous but not uniform; the same 



1 6 The Study of History and Sociology. 

may be said of human development or of the course of hu- 
man events. The whole course of human progress is the re- 
sult of the action and the reaction of nature and thought, 
and the best part of history is a resultant series of judgments 
that tend to the instruction and elevation of humanity, for 
"history is the conscience of humanity." Out of the influ- 
ences of this changing, moving mental development have 
flowed the means of the education of the race. The deeds of 
man in relation to general humanity, the efl'ect of his action, 
in accordance with laws of development, have educated the 
race. As the irregular line of humanity moves onward 
through the ages, nations rise and fall and institutions are 
changed or obliterated ; "there is a quick movement forward 
here and a long, slow, retarding process there;" A acts on B 
and B on A and the residual moment of A and B acts on C, 
and thus the line of progress is small in the midst of great 
and mighty changes. A few individuals of the sum total of 
humanity struggle into a higher life while the great mass 
record change rather than progress, consequently "all degrees 
and shades of moral barbarism, of mental obtuseness and of 
piiysical wretchedness, have been found in juxtaposition with 
cultured refinement of life, clear consciousness of the ends of 
human existence, and free participation in the benefits of civil 
order." (Lotze, II, 147.) 

History is being made every day, through us and about us. 
It is not an antiquarian study even though it deals much with 
the past, for the best life of the past is our present. The past 
of which we speak is only the childiiood of our own life of 
whose progress we boast. To know this life more fully is the 
object of historical research. It is, therefore, the province of 
the student of history to observe the best and latest products 
of social development, as well as the early and immature. It 
is his duty to inquire into present social and political life, and 



TJie Nature of History. 17 



to study present problems aud note how history is being made 
in the laboratory of the active world. It is the truth, the 
living truth, that he seeks, and not the "dead past." The 
senate of Rome survives; the Roman church is in our midst; 
the Roman municipality is our municipality; the freemen are 
still assembling as of old; law and government are ancient 
institutions; civil justice is an evolution; the family is older 
than Abraham; the present is old, and the past is the record 
of youth. So does our former life continue into the present, 
changed somewhat in form and force, but still the same. 

—2 



1 8 JJie Study of History and Sociology. 



THE SCOPE OF HISTORY. 



The rauge of history is as wide as the range of science, and 
the idea of history is as great as the idea of nature. Its funda- 
mental idea or notion is of universal sco])e. But what are 
the limitations of history to the student, and what are its 
legitimate functions, and its proper field ? It embraces some- 
thing more than the mere relation of events; it represents the 
study of the records of man in all of their wide significations. 
It represents the track of progress whether of the past or 
])resent. It is a recital of the evolution of man in society 
and politics. Formerly historians were content to recite the 
formal declaration of events, and tell of things that happened 
to men and to states. AVhile this is an essential characteristic 
of all history, the later historians have taken great care to do 
more — to recount the political and administrative development 
of institutions, and they have made a great advance over the 
old form of recitiug the story of kings, houses, dynasties, and 
the chront)logy of events. Such is the advance, that every 
historian recognizes at least that nothing is worthy the name 
of history which docs not recount in a substantial way the 
progress of society and the permanent influences that brought 
about progress. But still the historian is about to enlarge his 
field by a vast addition of territory. There are so many in- 
stances in which the political history of a people depends 
either directly or indirectly on some social or economic move- 
ment, it seems essential that the historian, or at least the stu- 
dent of history, should incorporate the permanent influences 
of industrial society into his own work. In other words, 
that history must be studied from a social and economic as 
well as from a political standpoint. The tendency of history 



TJie Scope of History, 19 

is to incorporate these new fields under its own name. Not 
only is this tendency very strong, but the relation of history 
to many kindred studies is growing stronger, and its vital 
touch reaches out to many other branches of study. In de- 
fining its true scope, those branches which it may safely in- 
corporate into its legitimate work will first be given, and these 
will be followed by certain auxiliary studies, or those that 
directly help the study of history, and are more or less inti- 
mately connected therewith. 

Whatever expansion historical studies may receive, there 
is one phase which may not be departed from in a general 
scope of history; that is the simple narration of events as 
they occur. It matters not what form history may take, 
whether general or special, it matters not how the investiga- 
tion is conducted, the recital of simple facts is always under- 
stood to be an essential of history. The special line of study 
always presupposes a general knowledge of facts and cor- 
respondences. History as literature must be considered as 
the formal basis of operation for the student. It is within this 
field that the study of bibliography may also come, for it rep- 
resents the material upon which the student works. The old 
conception, that history is that which is written and is to be 
read, must uot be ignored on account of the numerous addi- 
tious that have been made to the general scope of the science. 
Macaulay and Gibbon and Montesquieu aud Carlyle are still 
to be read, but with the idea that this is not a comprehen- 
sive study of history, but only a means of getting in uiiud the 
narrative of events, the movement of armies, of nations, and 
that the study most beneficial is to begin from this point. 
This branch of history represents a part of historical material, 
aud consequently must receive great attention. The culture 
that arises from a perusal of books of this nature is largely 



20 The Study of History and Sociology. 



an infiiieuce upon the tastes of the individual, giving him 
also a discriminating style. It also cultivates the handling 
of documents; but this is a question of method rather than 
a question of a department of history. 

History as Politics. — Freeman, Maurenbrecher and 
others have laid great stress upon history as politics; and, 
indeed, liistory has much to do with politics, for thus far its 
best and greatest field is a study of politics. Political history 
represents in its best sense the political development of insti- 
tutions. The definition first given by Freeman, that " History 
is past Politics and Politics present History," is excellent in 
its proper sense, but must be taken with some reservation 
when applied as a complete definition of history. If it is 
meant that all history is past politics and all politics is pres- 
ent hidory, we are deceived; but if it is intended to convey the 
idea that some hidory is past politics and some politics is present 
history, the question is admitted. But the presentation of 
history by our best students has made politics so important 
that the "some history" fills the more important part of the 
wide range of this great subject. 

If history is to be limited by the iron-clad definition, what 
then is all of the life of man that is not included in politics? 
What of law and custom? What of the history of the de- 
velopment of the family, of society in general ? What of 
religion, or of art, and of that great branch of learning now 
coming into use, known as Kulturgeschichte? What of trade 
and commerce, of philosophy and education, and what of 
biography? Are these to be excluded from the scope of his- 
tory? By no means; they form an integral part of history or 
else bear in jwrt an intimate relation, so that they must at least 
l)e carefully considered by the historian. At least Kultur- 
geschiciite and Sociology must claim their especial j^art in this 



TJie Scope of History. 21 

great subject. The history of civilization begins before there 
was a polls and extends until the ■pol'u is only a branch of its 
vast extent. 

By history as politics we understand it in the best sense; 
we understand history as the progress of a people in the de- 
velopment of civil powers and functions. Politics in this 
sense means comparative study of institutionsaud comparative 
administration. It includes the history of political develop- 
ment rather than the process of technical or practical politics. 
There is no science of practical or technical politics in America. 
Practical politics is not systematic enough to become a science 
and not sufficiently creative to be called an art. It is regu- 
lated by the dynamics of those in power; it is a part of the 
mechanics of present society, but it has not character sufficient 
to rate it as a branch of science. Perhaps in that phase of 
politics called diplomacy it may be elevated to an art. 

Politics then forms a great branch of history, and is a pow- 
erful auxiliary to all historical study of whatsoever nature. 
Society may be approached through the state, and this is the 
most universal conception we have of the constant develop- 
ment of society on any line. But the state is not all of society 
nor is its history all of history. Perhaps the study of politi- 
cal institutions is the best means of approach to the study of 
history. 

Maurenbrecher holds that the science of history has for its 
chief feature, political history, which is a relation of the state- 
life of the people to mankind. The state as a form holds the 
collected life of a people as its own, and within this form is con- 
tained not only the political activities of a people but all other 
activities, and these other activities are deserving of special 
treatment as branches of history. But what do we under- 
stand by history as politics ? We mean that branch of history 
which treats of the constitutional development of a state; of 



The Study of History and Sociology 



the history of state-life aud state development; it involves 
all study and description pertaining to political institutions, 
and may be the central idea in the study of social institutions. 
In flict, all history may be approached from a political stand- 
point. Of a necessity this involves the forms of administra- 
tion, for it involves not only institutions themselves, but also 
processes by which these institutions are upheld, and the man- 
ner in which government is formed and performs its office. 
The lamiliar branch of learning called comparative politics, 
as well as the branches of comparative jurisprudence, com- 
parative administration and comparative institutions, belongs 
to this subject. As for practical })olities, the methods of pro- 
cedure and the existing institutions are all that can be studied. 
The present method, which is termed politics in common lan- 
guage — which means the process by which one party may 
obtain and hold office at the expense of the other or of the 
general public; the process of management so as to elect offi- 
cers by the will of a few people and not according to the vol- 
untary will of the whole people — we have nothing to do with, 
only so far as it brings us face to face with the situation of a 
"government by the people aud for the people." 

However, there may be a sense in which the term "prac- 
tical politics" may be applied to the present forms and func- 
tions of government — to munici})al, state, and federal or 
national governments, and their actual administration. 

The systematic study of the institutions of various countries 
and their comparison with each other, has become one of the 
most prominent features in modern historical courses. With 
the studies of Niebuhr and Ranke, and the later investiga- 
tions of Maine, Stubbs, von Maurer, Waitz, Freeman aud 
others, this new study has risen in importance. It is gen- 
erally known as Comparative Politics or Institutional His- 
tory. Of all of the historical studies, perhaps this brings into 



The Scope of History. 



action the best play of faculties, and as such represents one of 
the most useful branches of the entire range. It not only 
brings into contrast and comparison the institutions of the 
various countries, but throws light on the development of the 
race. It shows the contact of one nation with another, and 
the interchange of customs; it shows in some cases a unity of 
stock, and establishes a relationship between separate peoples. 
It brings clearly to the mind the unity and the continuity of 
history. There is throughout the entire course of this study 
a demand for the exercise of the judgment, not only as to 
normal but as to abnormal developments; not only as to how 
nations have grown, but as to what are the best institutions. 
It shows how much of our development is natural and how 
much is arbitrary ; it discriminates between that change which 
is growth and that which is retrogression or revolution. 

This comparative method has of late been applied to other 
branches, and we find that comparative administration now 
enters the lists as one of the most profitable studies in the 
curriculum. It will be seen that this might be included in 
one sense under the title of comparative politics, but its 
importance and specialization in treatment demand that it 
should be placed under a separate head. Administration 
treats more specifically of function in contrast with the idea 
of institutions as existing forms or established character- 
istics of government. Likewise, it seems that there is a 
tendency for administration to work more in present politics 
than in past, although this is not so determined by the nature 
of the subject. At all events, "Comparative administration 
is a part of comparative politics. It would be hardly possible 
without administrative description to convey exact ideas of 
political action, or even of political conception. A course in 
institutional history ought to be both elucidative of ideas and 
descriptive of forms of political action and means of political 



24 TJic Study of History afid Sociology. 

organization." It should include, therefore, the form of ad- 
ministration and the rule of action; consequently a history of 
the organs of government and political customs or laws 
should be given. 

The science of government is clearly a historical science, 
and treats not only of the philosophy of the governmental 
processes and of applied laws, but of the duties of citizenship. 
It does not come within the province of this department, only 
so far as it has purely historical bearings. Perhaps civics or 
political science would serve to designate this important special 
branch of study. 

Comparative jurisprudence may become one of the 
future studies in historical courses. It could be given as a 
study of historical comparison. It would not be a law study, 
only so far as it was necessary to treat of legislative acts and 
judicial decisions, and the development of society as indicated 
by these. The historical study in law must of a necessity 
throw great light on general history. The ancient codes as 
given by Manu, Moses, Solon, Lycurgus, and the Twelve 
Tables, are the best records of institutional develoi)ment, and 
a comparative study of these as a special study ought to be 
included in the proper territory of history. Even the code 
of the Saxons and Lombards, and other Teutons, might enter 
into the comparison. This study of the law is historical, and 
leads directly to fulfill its purpose, namely, to throw light 
upon institutions. As such it has no direct reference to the 
modern practice of the law. 

Economic Politics.— One branch of political economy 
falls directly within the scope of history, and this is what may 
be termed economic politics, or that part of political economy 
which has to do with the action of the state concerning eco- 
nomical development. This has been called "Historico- 
Political Economy," as treated by the historian. It deals 



The Scope of History. 25 

less with economic life as a philosophy, and more with the 
practical affairs of economic legislation. As such it might 
assume the German name of "National Economy," only that 
it would include more than is here intended. There is a 
Political Economy which deals with the economic life, with 
labor and capital, but which more properly figures as a branch 
of general sociology. 

Within the scope of economic politics should be grouped 
those social and economic movements which have been directly 
connected with the political changes that have taken place in 
states. Some of the so-called political institutions have their 
direct cause of existence, in social or economic movements. 
The so-called new school, or, what is more explanatory, the 
''historical school" of political economists, in contradistinc- 
tion to the old or "deductive" school, base their operations 
upon historical conditions rather than upon a priori argu- 
ments. Consequently, the association of political economy 
with the study of history has become common. It is true, 
on the one hand, that the dull science of political economy, 
that struggles with a priori principles, ideal men, ideal na- 
tions, and ideal conditions, is released from many of its blun- 
ders when a careful search into historical conditions is made. 
On the other hand, there is an industrial history of nations 
which may be incorporated with the study of history proper, 
and still allow Political Economy to retain its own province 
undisturbed. It is this phase of political history which 
should come under the head of economic politics. The study 
of Political Economy as a branch of Sociology will be treated 
of under that heading. 

Religion has always been an important force in society- 
building, and has an especial influence in the formation of 
political institutions. So important is it that the student of 
history must give it especial attention in some form. As its 



26 TJic Study of History and Sociology. 

iufiiiencc is great in the formation of primitive society, it is 
well that some knowledge of the subject in its relation to the 
family and the tribe should be acquired, although a special 
study of this would naturally fall within the scope of sociol- 
ogy proper. The study from this point should be extended to 
comj)arative religions; their relations to the state and general 
politics as well as their influence on society, should be clearly 
shown. The subject must not be dropped until a thorough 
study is made of the position of the Christian church in the 
great political movements of modern times. The relation of 
the Church to the Roman Empire, and its connection with the 
Holy' Roman Empire, as well as its influence in modern na- 
tions, particularly those of France, England and Spain, render 
the subject of such great importance that it should receive es- 
pecial attention in every grouping of the historical sciences. 
In all of this work the investigation is not pursued with the 
purpose of teaching the precepts or doctrines of any religion, 
but merely to ascertain its effect upon social and political in- 
stitutions. 

Anthropology as the natural history of man may be in- 
dispensable to political history, but by its strange contrasts to 
later developments it furnishes a field for study which in every 
way tends to bring clearly before the mind the prominence of 
institutions and their developments. The history of man on 
earth should begin properly with his earlier recoi'ds, fragmen- 
tary as they are. But the extended study of Anthropology 
falls naturally into the group under sociology. It is consid- 
ered historically, and thus far is a historical study. However 
it is classified either under sociology or history proper, and 
this will depend somewhat upon the arrangement of courses 
in a department. In its nature and purposes it is a sociolog- 
ical subject; in its method it is historical. 

The researches into the condition of man in his early 



TJie Scope of History. 



-/ 



stages, as well as the consideration of man in his later devel- 
opment, tend to throw liglit upon his historical condition. 
The primitive culture of man which distinguishes him from 
the brutes or from other animals is a subject worthy the at- 
tention of the historian. But the scientist, the sociologist, 
and the historian meet here on common ground, each working 
according to his purpose, and each after a certain line of truth 
which in its nature is largely historic. In its extended sense 
the study of anthropology treats of the entire man, and con- 
sequently involves a scientific phase. 

Ethnology or the science of races has been put forth with 
many different theories. The origin and early history of the 
separate races have taken much of the historian's attention, 
though it is far from antiquarian in its effects. Its study has 
a bearing upon all history. Its questions do not as a rule 
determine the nature of institutions, but they are determined 
by the study of institutions. The questions settled by eth- 
nology are those of a general rather than of a specific nature. 
But the science that treats of races has a general bearins; on 
all historical development; even the modern problems are 
based upon race differences, and many of the greatest move- 
ments of history have been based on the race problem. How 
strangely is the race principle shown in the old Hebrew polity 
in the treatment of the foreigner; the Greek likewise dis- 
criminated against other races; so, too, did the Roman. In 
our own country we find the same problems being brought 
up. A study of the ethnology of the human species must 
throw light upon both ancient and modern history, or rather 
upon history, for all history is modern to the student. 

When we find Greek and Roman institutions in our midst, 
we are inclined to believe that there is but one history, and 
the "ancient" and "modern" express but different phases of 
the same continuous development of human institutions. 



28 The Study of History and Sociology. 

Geography. — To kuow history without knowing geogra- 
phy is to deal with half-kuowledge, or to deal in knowledge 
without making it tangible. The influence of geography upon 
the political institutions of different people is clearly marked in 
everyway. Buckle and Draper have not succeeded in proving 
all that they have outlined on this subject, but they have cer- 
tainly shown the influence of environment on the development 
of a people. By the study of geography in connection with his- 
tory something more is desired than the study of the boundary 
of a nation, something more than the mere location of a peo- 
ple, the tracing of the movement of armies, or of boundary 
frontiers — although all of these are essential. But the influ- 
ence of the climate on the life and inherent development of a 
people; the influence of situation in regard to the ocean, 
to mountains and to plains — these are the subjects that con- 
cern us. The influence of winds, of storms, of cold and heat; 
the possibility of animal life and vegetable productions — all 
are essential to the making of a nation, as well as the prox- 
imity to other nations and races. The situation of Greece, 
a country of islands, a land indented with branches of the 
ocean, separated into many small valleys and cut off on the 
north by mountain-chains; with a temperate climate and a 
productive soil ; these must all be considered in the making 
of Greece. Even the beginnings of civilization, on the Eu- 
phrates and the Nile, have great dependence upon the ease 
with which the soil could be tilled with a bountiful yield. 
In Rome we find the same striking phenomena: the geo- 
graphical position, the soil and the climate, have helped to 
make Rome. In our own country we have lost nothing be- 
cause an ocean rolls between us and England; nothing of 
intellectual liberty; nothing of the progress of American in- 
stitutions; and we have much in our favor that the western 
boundary of our nation is the wide Pacific. Indeed the his- 



The Scope of History. 29 

tory of countries is frequently written in the soil, or on the 
face of nature. 

Chronology. — Certain misguided persons have sometimes 
thought that the large part of history is made of chronology, 
and have studied upon this basis. The use of chronology is 
indispensable, but it is not history any more than the sur- 
veyor's chain is land. It is necessary that history be set off 
by boundary stakes aud divided into fields. It is also neces- 
sary that each part of history be kept within its own bounds. 
For this purpose it is necessary to use chronology. Chro- 
nology is the time-measure, aud consequently the order- 
measure, of history. Its chief aim is to keep events in their 
proper line. Considered in itself as an isolated fact, it does 
not matter whether Columbus discovered America in 11^92 
or in 1292 ; but in relation to other facts, it is of great 
importance. The fact that King John signed the Magna 
Charta in 1215 has nothing in it particularly historical, so 
far as the date is concerned ; but in comparison with the 
other events of history, it is essential. To place the Magna 
Cliarta in the time of William the Conqueror, would create 
such a confusion in historical affairs as to be entirely irreme- 
dial; to place it later, is to destroy its force. That is to say, 
that dates should follow events, and should be learned from 
them rather than the events from the dates. He who under- 
stands history will place the facts in historical sequence. Not 
to be able to do this is not to know history. But this does 
not imply that every insignificant date should be memorized 
for itself; in fact, history learned in this way is good for 
nothing. I mean that the real significance of history is its 
only claim to be accorded a place in the memory; and the 
memory, being a rational faculty, will throw off all else, or at 
least will not be burdened by its weight. 

Philosophy has a close relation to history, especially that 



The Si2idy of History and Sociology. 



which has been called the liistoiy of philosophy. Indeed, it 
has been common with some to treat all history as philos- 
ophy, after the noted definition which affirms that "history 
is philosophy teaching by examples." It is not difficult to 
conceive of history as an inductive philosophy, and as such 
it conveys the results of human action in moral judgments; 
but it seems more consistent with our purpose to class it 
among the sciences, and to philosophize upon human conduct 
as an especial study. Tiiis is somewhat diffi^reut from the 
philosophy of history which seeks to explain the causes of 
human action and their results on general society. This is 
in part represented by such a treatise as Guizot's History of 
Civilization, if we consider it as objective and search for the 
cause and effect of events, and desire to trace the movement 
of history or the philosophy of progress. Also, Draper bases 
this philoso[)hy upon the movement of the intellect; and to 
that extent his history is philosophy. But there is a deeper 
or more sul)jective consideration of history, which brings it 
closer to philosophy. It is in the nature of the history of 
history, and as such deals in the subject as a human philoso- 
phy. This extreme view, that considers history in the light 
of philosophy, is best represented by Lotze, in his Microcos- 
mus. Flint, in his Philosophy of History in Europe, takes 
middle ground, and truly represents the philosophy of history 
in its historical, philosophical antl applied phases. As thus 
presented it should become part of the study of history. An 
extended philosophy of history will include the history of the 
philosophy of civilization. 

Hlstokical criticiSxM has for its chief work the examina- 
tion of evidence. An examination of the sources of history 
and a critical analysis of the works of authorities are indispen- 
sable to special study in history. Not only is a wide acquaint- 
ance with the sources of history obtained by this studv, but 



TJie Scope of History. 



the nature of the treatment by different authorities is made 
clear. The nature of the evidence in each case as well as the 
kinds of categories of historical evidence, is presented. The 
value of the classification of sources and authorities according 
to their merits, cannot be estimated. The student learns to 
examine the motives which impelled men to write, to under- 
stand the conditions under which they wrote, and to estimate 
the genuineness of the sources used. The student thus learns 
to avoid certain books as false or misleading, and to place 
great confidence in others. By such critical examination he 
learns how much credence to place in some of the stories of 
Livy, and what is the historical significance of Homer. He 
learns to estimate at their true value Froissart and Gregory 
of Tours, Froude and Freeman, Ranke and Mommsen, Car- 
lyle and Thiers. Historical criticism should analyze the style 
of authors, for this frequently leads to a discrimination of the 
true merits of their work. A person may write in a charm- 
ing style, and yet be so careless of the truth that his produc- 
tions may be almost useless to the special student who rests 
his work on authenticity. 

Numismatics, or the study of coins, is becoming one of the 
most interesting and most useful of all of the investigations 
in original sources of history. The inscriptions on coins, 
brief as they may be, are to be relied upon, and furnish in 
many instances a key to the explanation of difficult problems 
of historical analysis. But there are few institutions that 
have carried this study to such an extent as to make it a 
practical department of historical study, and there are ^qss in 
a situation to furnish collections of material sufficient for au 
extended research. Perhaps the time will come when it will 
be a more common branch in historical courses. Certainly it 
is a useful and interesting branch of instructiou. 

Sociology. — It is not easy to reach a final conclusion re- 



The StJidy of History and Sociology. 



spectiug the exact position of sociology in tlie liierarcliy of 
sciences. That there is a study of sociology wiiich is entitled 
to a prominent position, most scholars admit; that it is 
slowly gaining a place in universities, is a fact. But its real 
position and province have not been finally settled either 
by a consensus of opinion or by a large experience. It can 
occupy one of three positions in the category of studies: it 
may be considered a philosophy, a branch of natural science, 
or a historical science. The question as to whether it is in- 
cluded in any one of these as a branch, or whether it main- 
tains a separate and independent existence, has not been 
conclusively answered. In its treatment heretofore writers 
have called it a science, when their own treatment would 
pronounce it merely a speculative philosophy. In its ideal 
existence, and an ideal that experience will doubtless reach, 
it is a science. As such it must be classified as historical 
or natural, or occupy an independent position. As it recog- 
nizes social psychology, the individual consciousness of man 
in society, and the influence of human volition in the de- 
velopment of the social organism, it cannot be recognized as 
a natural science, though it may be confessed that the term 
"natural science" is becoming exceedingly broad in its 
signification. In a close analysis it may be considered in its 
specific sense as representing a position intermediate between 
biology and psychology on the one hand, and the historical 
sciences on the other. In its relation to the two former 
studies this is its correct position; but the moment one con- 
siders man in the aggregation above biology or psychology, 
he necessarily enters the realm of history in its broadest sense. 
It would seem that it should be classified as a historical science 
in a lower position in the hierarchy next to biology, or per- 
haps psychology. Since the time of Comte, the founder of 
ideal sociology, there has been a tendency in France to make 



TJie Scope of History. 



sociology a purely philosophical study, and to accord it a very 
promiuent place, makiug history auxiliary to it. 

This seems to be au error as far as history is concerued, 
for if they are auxiliary studies, history is certainly the prin- 
cipal and sociology the subordinate in classification. They 
occupy the same field, consider the same subjects jiwith the 
same ultimate end, viz., a better understanding of human so- 
ciety. But in conceding this it must be maintained that 
sociology has, in a special sense, a specific work to do on its 
own account which is an important aid to history. It ex- 
amines the universal elements and changes in different socie- 
ties; it searches for the uuiv^ersal factors of society-building, 
the universal types of society forms, and the active functions 
of the social organism. The chief mark of distinction is that 
sociology treats of universals, while history treats of indi- 
viduals. But sociology, while it ignores the individual in 
society, does not ignore the individual society. In the search 
for the laws of the creation and control of au individual so- 
ciety it must deal with a great amount of concrete historical 
material and use the historical method. That is, sociology is 
something more than a jihilosophy about the laws of the de- 
velopment of the organism called society. Its nature and 
scope, as well as its utility, make it a complement to history 
seeking to understand the nature of human institutions by a 
different method of approach. But in specializing universal 
types, and seeking universal laws, it goes beyond the realm 
of general history and enters a sphere truly its own. Yet in 
this particular field it must make use of what history has for- 
mulated, and is still, so far as study is concerned, in the 
realm of knowledge and research, the essential forces of 
history. It is evident that sociology is more closely related to 
history in its province and methods and aims than to either 
natural science or philosophy, and therefore must become es- 
—3 



34 TJic Study of His/cny mid Sociology. 

tablished in an independent position or else fall within the 
classification of the historical sciences. But it must retain for 
itself its own individual character, its special field, and its 
own special methods; and with these extend its work farther 
than history has been accustomed to go in the discovery of 
universal laws of social development. 

One of the important phases of sociological investigation is 
the study and use of statistics. Statistics perfoi'm an impor- 
tant part in all economic and sociological research, and are also 
a strong support to history. In use they are a universal in- 
strument, and the knowledge of their use is a science in itself. 
The province of statistics is to collect and formulate facts and 
report results in a numerical way. Its great claim to an in- 
dependent position is found in the special preparation neces- 
sary to the right use of statistics. No other branch is so 
useful, and yet none other so misleading in its effects. The 
labor of weeks may be represented upon a single page, but 
the proper interpretation of the page requires a wide knowl- 
edge of the subjects treated, and consummate skill in their 
combination and deductions. The study of social statistics is 
indispensable to the thorough and comprehensive study of 
sociology. 



TJie Study of History and Sociology. 35 



THE RELATION OF HISTORY TO CERTAIN OTHER 
SCIENCES. 



Relation of History to Philology. — History aud phil- 
ology, as respects both method aud material, represent entirely 
different fields of action. As auxiliary sciences they are always 
mutually helpful to each other. Perhaps philology has con- 
ferred the more important benefit upon history ; but on theother 
hand, the latter is entirely indispensable to the former. There 
is a narrow line of contact in which the two sciences exist, 
aud it is on this margin that they chiefly aid each other. It is 
the margin where the history of races helps determine the his- 
tory of language, aud the philology of languages determines 
the distinction in races. In a more extended view, it is where 
the lauoruao-e assists in the determination of the nature of in- 
stitutions, and institutions assist to interpret language. It 
may be considered that the science of language though deal- 
ing with a human institution, does not approach so near the 
activities of the people in its processes as history, but as a 
formula-maker it accomplishes far-reaching results. As it is, 
the scientific study of comparative philology has disclosed a 
closer relationship of the chief races of the earth, and ren- 
dered great service in the interpretation of some of the prob- 
lems of institutional history. Perhaps the most striking- 
example of this is the unquestioned proof obtained by the 
study of philology that the Aryan nations are all sisters in 
stock, speech, and institutions. Here philology has derived 
a formula for the solution of ethnic problems, but it need not 
go further. It rests here, and returns to the development of 
language. And as such, it uses the accumulated materials of 
history for its purpose. But history obtains aud appropriates 



6 The Study of History and Sociology 



its chief products. The iuterj^retatioii of tlie famous Rosetta 
Stone, in 17i)9, ojiened to tlie lio-ht of the world of history 
the childhood of Egypt. The exploratious iu behalf of 
the study of language and the interpretations of the tablets 
and cylinders, especially of oriental countries, have been of 
unmeasured benelits to accurate history. It now remains for 
philology to solve the problem of the original seat of the 
Aryan races, wiiether in Europe or in Asia. 

At all events, the historian does not need to enter the 
domain of philology as his province, any more than the do- 
main of natural science, but history must ever acknowledge 
with a deep sense of gratitude the assistance of jihilology as 
a means of throwing light upon many difficult problems of 
the races. As a companion study to history, ])hilology will 
yield a rich return to the historian. And though he may not 
become expert nor have knowledge sufficient to determine re- 
sults, which he may well leave in the hands of the philolo- 
gian, yet it will give him increased strength and be of great 
service to have a wide acquaintance with philology, and 
an indispensable reading knowledge of many languages. But 
in the j»rocessesof both sciences, history functions as philology 
as often as |)hilology functions as history, and both on the 
narrow margin of contact. It is the results of philology that 
history wants, and cares for nothing else, as it is the use of 
history in reaching those results that philology cares for, and 
nothing for society and its laws as such. 

Relation to Law\ — There is an intimate relation between 
the study of the law and the study of history. In fact, a 
comprehensive study of the law involves a study of iiistory, 
and is really a phase of history. By the study of the law iu 
this sense, I mean something more than that series of readings 
sufficient to admit a novice to practice at one of our common 
courts, or even to the supreme courts of the United States. 



Relation of History to Certain Other Sciences. 37 

A person may do this and know but little about history. But 
if a person will take a deep and thorough study of law in 
its largest sense, he will have laid the foundation of historical 
study, and will have touched upon the most "instructive part 
of history." On the other hand, a thorough understanding 
of the law is not possible without a study of history, and a 
continued use of the historical method. The principles of 
law may be learned as the multiplication table, and one may 
become ftuiailiar with them. But to understand the law 
thoroughly, one must needs apply himself to research and 
comparison. On the other hand, the study of history is 
greatly strengthened by the study of the law, and the products 
of law study are seen in our best modern historical investi- 
gations. 

Perhaps the most direct influence in the formation of his- 
tory is the development of private law through custom. 
Though less apparent than the origin of law through legisla- 
tion, or through equity and the decrees of rulers, this part of 
law touches more directly the vital movements of society, and 
is along the margin of all political development. A careful 
historical reading of the laws of the Massachusetts Bay colony 
will reveal the principal phases of society at that period, which 
are indispensable to the historian. There may not be an ac- 
count of the detailed movements of a people, but there is a 
series of judgments of their social and political life, the written 
road over which they have come. But the real life of the 
peo})le is not, after all, discerned without referring to other 
sources; without determining under what conditions certain 
laws were enacted, and their effects on society. So, likewise, 
the study of constitutional law will strengthen constitutional 
history. The principles of constitutional law may be studied 
without a great deal of work in historv, but the historical 
development of constitutional law will be found to yield rich 



TJie Study of History and Sociology 



returns to the iovestio-ator. The organic development of 
states as individuals may be best understood by studying 
their laws, and the effect of the same on the people. But as 
constitutions and as laws are growths they have a history, 
and it is the development of this history that we seek. Again, 
international law and diplomacy may be called historical 
studies, for they treat of the movements of nations and the 
existence of great customs, acknowledged as the laws of na- 
tions. 

•' Wie das Volk so das Recht, und wie das Recht so das ^olk." 

Art and Architecture show one side of the development 
of history, and in this respect may be considered as auxiliary to 
the study of history. Art and architecture not only show by 
external evidence of the development of the mind, but they also 
evince the character of the institutions that prevailed at certain 
periods of life. The history of art should not be neglected 
in the study of the institutions of the people. Indeed, almost 
the first difference that greets us in the study of prehistoric 
man is a difference in art. In fact, in the comparison of any 
of the nations of antiquity as well as all modern nations, the 
difference in art in most instances is a sufficient mark to char- 
acterize species. The commingling of national architecture is 
an evidence of the contact of the people, and the purity of 
art may indicate a long separation. By a clear knowledge of 
the history of the art of a country the life of the people will 
be made more definite, and be better understood. Art, too, 
forms one of the sources of the records of human history. It 
records the position, the character, and the life of a people. 
The history of art is valuable as a record of events, but more 
especially is it to be studied as an aid in determining the stage 
of progress of a people, and the quality of their culture. 



TJie Study of History and Sociology. 



THE PROVINCE AND STUDY OF SOCIOLOGY. 

The study of sociology as au iudepeudeut brauch has re- 
ceived but little attention in American institutions. In fact, 
its position in the curriculum is indeterminate at present. 
Work has been done in the acknowledged tield of sociology 
in some of the principal institutions of America, and a few 
hav^e entered upon specific studies in this line. But in 
all of this there is no regularly established method of pro- 
cedure; in fact, the study has not yet been assigned its proper 
place in institutions. That it will eventually receive its mer- 
ited attention, no one can question; but just at present there 
is not a consensus of opinion as to the scope and the province 
of sociology, and whether it is a historical study or should 
have a separate existence. In truth, the writers on sociology 
do not yet agree touching these main points. The most that 
has been written is introductory to sociology, or else is only 
.social philosophy at best. Comte outlined what is termed the 
science of sociology, but his discussion was nothing but social 
philosophy; and likewise Spencer made a beginning on the 
right basis, but in all of his writings we find that social philos- 
ophy clearly out-runs the scientific method. In the most ex- 
tensive work yet published on sociology, that by Schiiffle, a 
vast deal of material is outlined ; but there is evidence on every 
side of a lack of scientific methods in sociology. 

So, likewise, the w^orks of Leterueau, of De Greef and others 
deal wath the philosophy of sociology, but do not enter fully 
into the real conception of the term as the science of society. 
We are not wanting in opinions, or in conceptions, but we are 
in need of a true determination of the real position and nature 



40 TJic Study of History and Sociology. 

of this study by a geuerally accepted scientific method before 
we can get much beyond a social philosophy. Lester F. Ward 
in the " Dynamic Sociology " has given us the best outline 
of the study that has been produced in America. President 
Small, of Colby University, has prepared a syllabus on the 
study of sociology — an Introduction to the Science of Soci- 
ology — which gives a clear outline of the scope of the work; 
and Prof. Geddiugs, of Bryn Mawr, has written a paper on 
the Province of Sociology in which he determines its position. 
All of these papers and publications, and others not mentioned, 
show that sociology is struggling for a true position in the 
hierarchy of studies, and that at present it has made some 
definite progress in this respect. Prof. P. T. Ely, of Johns 
Hopkins University, in his text-book on Political Economy, 
brings that subject where it belongs — more directly into the 
range of social sciences. But with all of these and other good 
works, it must be deplored that the subject is not farther ad- 
vanced toward its ultimate superior position. 

A word must be said about the treatment of what is known 
as "'social science" in a peculiar way, as if its only province 
was broken-down and imperfect society; and that sociology 
has to deal only with social problems, and not with the 
rational development of human society. It must be ac- 
knowledged that the value of the study of charities and 
corrections cannot be overestimated, and that as representa- 
tive of the position of a certain phase of social disorganization, 
the study of these is invaluable. These studies represent 
the outcroppings of society, and just as a ledge in the mount- 
ains will show by its nature the condition of the original 
bed, so these parts of disorganized society will show the nature 
of the true structure. So, also, as it treats chiefly in its scien- 
tific methods of the reorganization of society, there is an op- 



The Province and Study of Sociology. 41 

portunity offered for the applicatiou of the best results of the 
study of sociology. 

The science of sociology treats iu geaeral of all of those 
forces which teud to organize, disorganize or reorganize hu- 
man society. In the treatment of topics, iu its proper sphere, 
it is not a parasite nor a conglomerate science, but holds a 
clear and distinct field of reasoning. It is not history, nor 
religion, nor economics, nor politics, nor ethics, though it is 
intimately connected with these and dependent upon the ma- 
terial which they have classified and the laws that they have 
formulated. Its fundamental principle is that of a distinct 
organism for society; it treats of universal types and classes, 
and searches for universal laws. It treats of the evolution of 
human society. It uses history to determine its ends, and yet 
is not history. It must treat of the descriptions of this sci- 
ence, and thus must use historical methods. 

In treating of the study of sociology it is to be noticed that 
the term may be used in two separate ways, even as biology 
is thus used : in a general and in a specific way. First, 
general sociology may include within its scope the study of 
economic philosophy and the laws of production, distribution, 
and consumption; it may treat, in other words, of economic 
life and of the economic organs and functions of society, and 
thus include the main body of so-called political economy ; it 
should be termed social economy in distinction from economic 
politics; it may also include within its scope a system of nat- 
ural ethics, and may treat of the historic movement of society. 
It has to do with politics only so far as it shows how political 
organizations are a natural evolution of society. In govern- 
ment, administration, and iu religion, in all of these things 
it must deal with the forces that make organic unity. It may 
not include within its grasp, as classified knowledge, the his- 
torical sciences, but rather it is a historical science in its 



42 77^1? Study of History and Sociology. 

nature. It may not be a natural science, because it deals with 
man in his entire relations; it treats of l)oth natural and arti- 
ficial society. It may not be a j>hilosophy, because that too is 
limited to the products of the mind alone. It is not a religion, 
for that treats of belief, of the soul, and of life eternal. If a 
science at all, it must stand entirely alone, or else be classed 
with the historical sciences. 

In its specific nature it becomes an intensified branch of 
history; and as such, by its special consideration and intense 
existence, goes beyond the range of history aud makes for it- 
self a distinct field. From a large, loose term, used to denote 
general sociology, we find it used in a clear and discrimina- 
ting way to denote a special science with a specific place in 
the hierarchy of sciences. It finds position between the sci- 
ences of biology and ])sychology on the one hand and the 
historical sciences on the other. It is sociogeny and not 
sociology. This is the truest and best part of the science. 

In the study of sociology I wish to make the following 
analysis, and to consider what is to be said under these head- 
ings: I, Social Philosophy; II, Historical and Descriptive 
Sociology; III, Social Problems; IV, The History of Soci- 
ology. 

In the consideration of the subject under the first heading, 
it is desired to treat of the foundation j)rinciples of sociology 
and what might be determined by an introduction to the 
science. In this branch of study would be found the differ- 
ence between dynamical and statical sociology, and a general 
discussion of the position and province of sociology. It would 
also treat of the fundamental principles of sociology as well 
as of its aims and methods. Beyond this it would enter upon 
the task of determining what forces tend to organize society. 
It would treat of the relation of sociology to biology and 
psychology, and the relation of sociology to history. Having 



Tlie Province and Study of Sociology. 43 

determiued this, an outline of the subject would be attempted 
as given in Ward under primary, secondary and tertiary aggre- 
gation. Thus far the study of social philosophy would open 
the entire field. 

II. Descriptive and Historical Sociology. — If soci- 
ology is to do what it pretends to do, if it is to maintain a posi- 
tion as a science, it must not ignore the historical method. The 
development of human society is its theme, and all of the 
philosophy about the development of society will not suffice 
to render it productive of the benefit that should accrue from 
its proper study. To study the development of human society 
without investigating the conditions of society during diiferent 
stages of its development, is to make a dull, dry and uninvit- 
ing study — as dull and dry as political economy of the old 
school, which was based upon ideal nations, ideal conditions, 
and an ideal man. It is true that sociology searches for gen- 
eral laws, but it must proceed inductively and not deductively, 
and this on its own account. It cannot wait for other sciences 
to formulate knowledge, and then from those formuhv to de- 
rive certain general laws for the development of society. All 
we can say about the development of society is that which has 
already taken place, and that is historic. Starting then with 
the primitive condition of society — indeed before any society 
existed — for our historical data, we proceed with the develop- 
ment of the family. The discussion of the early history of 
the family will lead to certain well-defined principles control- 
ling its early government. The different theories should be 
studied in connection with the historical data. The habits, 
the customs, the life of primitive man are all subjects of socio- 
logical study. The development of religious ideas and the 
tendency and infiuence of religion as well as consanguinity 
and natural ethics should be met in a studious way. The 
collected material that has been gathered in historical fields 



44 27/t' Study of History ami Sociology. 

and yet formulated for no particular purpose except for in- 
formation concerning n)an'8 early existence should be taken 
into account, and principles deduced for the guidance of the 
development of a single society. Again, different societies 
should be compared, and if possible general laws deduced for 
the formation of organic society. Later, the continued de- 
velopment of the family should be studied for the sake of 
throwing light upon modern institutions, and the subject of 
the family should not be laid down until it reaches the mod- 
ern question of marriage and divorce. Having once com- 
pleted the study of the formation of the family, the transition 
from the familv to the state should be made, and this should be 
followed by a careful study of the origin and develo[)ment of 
the latter. It would be well to consider the dilferent theories 
of the state, but the student must base his work as much as 
possible on what he may find in the development of social in- 
stitutions by a careful study of the people, their habits, cus- 
toms and laws. In the entire realm of study the great subjects 
of religion, natural ethics, the development of justice, the en- 
tire category of forces which tend to bring man into conscious 
association with his fellows, should receive thoughtful atten- 
tion. In the historic consideration of this subject the entire 
movement of society with its functions and organs must be 
considered, and as tar as possible general laws deduced. 

It is evident that sociology must be studied both as social 
dynamics and social statics; consequently, functions and 
structures both must be observed, for it is impossible to study 
function without studying structure, and structure must be 
studied through function. I will admit, however, that in 
the study of sociology the chief end sought is general laws 
and principles determining the structure and functions of 
social organization. But in the study of sociology the stu- 
dent must have something more tiian the analysis of these 



The Province and Study of Sociology. 45 

higher functious and the analysis of this higher classification 
of laws before him. He must have a faithful, concrete study of 
historic matter. He must have, in short, descriptive and 
historical sociology, as well as philosophical sociology. If 
sociology is to become a fruitful source of study, it must be 
demonstrated by facts, by classification, comparison and gen- 
eralization for itself; we must work upon what we find in 
the historical development of man. 

Practical Sociology, or the treatment of social 
PROBLEMS. — We must recoo-nize in the rano-e of the historical 
sciences both social and political institutions, and it is the 
severance of these two which draws the line of demarkation 
between the social and the political sciences. The origin and 
development of a state — its political institutions, its admin- 
istration and its laws, as such, in their organic functions — is 
a study of political science; but the development of the state 
as an organic function of society is a purely sociological ques- 
tion. The effect, also, of all political laws and institutions 
upon society as an organism must of a necessity belong to 
sociology. In the consideration of the study of sociology the 
most practical part must come from its application to the so- 
cial problems. Here comes in the study of economic society, 
both past and present — for indeed sociology recognizes the 
whole course of man on earth. The standpoint from which to 
study these questions is that of present problems; but in the 
study of the present problems, we must again refer to history 
and see to it that we have an intelligent basis of intpiiry. 
The inquiry into the marriage and divorce question will be 
best understood by an understanding of primitive marriage, 
of the practices of marriage and divorce in the different (;ivil- 
ized and barbarous nations. Nor should the student be 
satisfied with a careful study of statistics to determine the 
situation of marriage and divorce in the different countries, 



46 The Study of History and Sociology. 

and their tendency to increase and diininisli; he should at- 
tempt to find the causes of evil, and to point out the remedies. 
The value of historic research in this and all other problems 
is to avoid wild speculations and to ascertain the real and the 
future status of society. So, too, for all of the economic 
questions — for the treatment of the poor, for the treatment 
of the weak, for the treatment of the criminals — past history 
of society tells us best, the basis of the present movement. 
Not that we are to follow the past, but that a study of the 
past shows us the general trend of society and hel[)s us to see 
for the future. Under the division of practical sociology 
must come those subjects usually referred to as "charities and 
corrections." The im[)ortance of this study cannot be over- 
estimated in its proper sphere; but to make it cover the en- 
tire field of social science, as some have tried to do, is as false 
as it is absurd. The legitimate and the uormal part of society 
is more worthy of consideration than the abnormal. The 
subjects of charities and corrections and the studies included 
in the so-called ''social science" that a great many good peo- 
ple are throwing much zeal into of late, are too narrow and 
provincial to cover the field of sociology as represented by 
the modern university. But the study of charities and cor- 
rections has some great advantages. First, the subject fur- 
nishes the means for practical work in sociology, and renders 
the subject useful to society and to the state. 

These subjects need the prompt attention of the student 
and the scholar, and as such may assist not only in the reor- 
ganization of demoralized portions of society, but may suggest 
protective measures which will tend to strengthen legitimate 
society. It also furnishes a method of understanding human 
society. These are object lessons whicli treat of the true 
nature of sociology in its teleolosjjiiial or artificial nature. 
Here is the best example for man to exercise his society-form- 



The Province and Study of Sociology. 47 

iug power, by forciDg society to euter certain channels and to 
reform society. Take the individual in prison : by his own 
act he is no longer a legitimate part of society; he has no 
place in society; he has no sympathy with the life outside of 
the prison bars only so far as it furnishes him with a subsist- 
ence. Is he ever to be brought back into the society which 
he has left? He may serve out his term, but still he is an 
alien; he is against society; he becomes a non-producer, a 
destroyer. He has no part nor lot in the matter of this social 
world; he is without a place; he is only one individual, and 
the other one is society. Can he be made to conform to the 
usage of law and custom ? Can he be returned to a place as 
the component part of society and as such become its helpful 
servant? These are the questions for practical or applied so- 
ciology. 

Take another example, of the person who has practiced 
pauperism for years, and is in no sense a legitimate member 
of society. What shall be done with him? Will become 
back into the active ranks of society, or will he continue to 
be a parasite, a non-member of legitimate social conditions? 
The scientific treatment of charities is solving this problem 
to a certain extent, and will continue to do more in the line 
of the reorganization of society. But the student in the uni- 
versity must not be contented to study present phases of so- 
ciety and to learn how to manipulate modern methods: he 
must study the historical aspect of the question. He should 
inquire into the development of pauperism in the Roman 
world, and the treatment of the pauper class by the Roman 
government; he should inquire carefully into the condition 
of the Christian church in respect to this topic, and note well 
its practices and their results, particularly in its early history 
and during the Middle Ages, as well as to learn its latter 
practices and their results. He should study the poor-law of 



48 The Study of History and Sociology. 

England and its results, and examine carefully the origin and 
development of the modern charity organizations. It is easy 
to see how history is to subserve all of the ends of the study 
of practical sociology, and it is through this that the indi- 
vidual sees clearly the trend of society, and in accordance 
with this that he must apply his teleological processes. But 
these are only examples of practical sociology: the questions 
of race, of labor and capital, in fact all economic processes 
of distribution, production, and consumption, must be taken 
into account, and their influences on organic society considered. 
It is the duty of the student of sociology to find out the rea- 
son for the existence of certain conditions, and to observe 
their effects upon organic society, and to give attention to all 
of the relations between a particular phenomenon and general 
society, but it is the duty of the statesman to formulate and 
make the law remedying the evil. 

One more pliase of sociology needs to be mentioned, that of 
history of sociology. In treating of the philosopiiy of so- 
ciology one must necessarily speak more or less of different 
theories held by certain autiiors, but not necessarily to any 
great extent. The proper place to deal with the history of 
sociology is after the development of society has been thor- 
oughly studied. By this I mean the course which the science 
has thus far taken. In this we examine the ideas on the sub- 
ject as entertained by the best authorities of different periods 
from the origin of the science with Comte. The doctrines of 
Spencer, of Sismondi, of Carey, of Schaflle, of Leterneau, of 
Ward, of De Greef, and many others, must be examined and 
criticised. In this the student needs to have all of the train- 
ing possible, and likewise all of the knowledge possible to un- 
derstand and criticise the leaders in this science. Such work 
is possible only to the mature and well-stocked mind. 



Tlie Study of History and Sociology. 49 



SUGGESTED COURSE OF STUDY. 



The following course of study is iuteuded to be suggestive, 
rather than complete or final. No course of study can be fol- 
lowed with a great degree of accuracy, unless it is made for 
a class of students whose ability is known, and who have un- 
limited time to give to the work in hand. The following 
course will be followed as closely as it may be. It will ueces- 
sarilv be elaborated in some places and curtailed in others. 
If only a certain amount of time can be given to the study 
of the subject, then those subjects which are of the most im- 
portance will be dwelt upon most fully, awaiting the time 
when the present outline may be enlarged into a comprehen- 
sive study of sociology : 

I. — Social philosophy, or the philosophy of sociology. 

1. The meaning of sociology. 

2. The scope or province of sociology. 

3. Its position in the hierarchy of sciences. 

4. The relation of sociology to biology. 

5. The relation of sociology to psychology. 

6. The relation of sociology to history. 

7. The economic life as a branch of social life. 

8. The dynamics of sociology. 

9. The statics of sociology. 

10. What is meant by the social organism? 

11. What are the laws of society, or sociological laws ? 

12. The organs and functions of society. 

13. What is understood by social phenomena? 

14. What is meant by ''conscious society"? 

15. The primary factors in society-building. 

16. Analysis of primary, secondary, and tertiary aggre- 

srates. 



-4 



50 TJic Study of History and Sociology. 

11. — Historical and descriptive sociology. 

1. A consideratiou of ethnic groups. 

2. Early condition of mankind. 

3. Primitive culture. 

4. The primitive family. 

5. The theories of Morgan, McLennan, and Maine. 

6. The ideas of sex, protection, and force. 

7. Blood-relationship as an organizing force. 

8. Religion as a principle of union and federation. 

(a) Superstition and its influence on the individual. 
(6) Early form of worship. 

(c) The house- worship among the Aryans. 

(d) The influence of religious customs in framing 

laws. 

(e) The influence of religion in controlling indi- 

vidual motives. 
(/) Religion as a basis of association. 

9. The condition of the family in various races. 

10. The beginnings of social organization. 

11. The transition from the family to the state. 

{ci\ The patriarchal family. 
(/>) The formation of the gens, 
(c) The phratry or curia. 
((/) The developed tribe. 
{e) The polis or city-state. 

12. Historical origin of the state. 

13. The theory of the state: opinions of different i)hi- 

losophers. 

14. The origin of law. 

(a) The sources of law. 

(6) Forces in the development of the law. 

(c) The relation of law to ethics. 



Suggested Course of Study. 51 

15. The development of justice. 

(«) Origin of justice. 

(/>) The justice of family rulings. 

(c) Tribal justice in its developed condition. 

(f?) The development of the justice of the state. 

(e) The influence of justice on social organization. 
K). Natural or historical ethics. 

(a) No code of rules in disorganized society. 

(6) Ethical idea arising from consanguinity and 
proximity. 

(c) The ethics of maternity. 

(cZ) Slow evolution of ethics and justice. 

(g) Christian ethics. 

17. The influence of the accumulation of wealth on social 

life. 

(a) The beginnings of wealth. 

(6) The origin of property : communal, individual. 

(c) Influence on the development of society. 

(cZ) The production, distribution and consumption 

of wealth, 
(e) General effect of the economic life on social 

organization. 

18. The influence of heredity. 

19. The influence of education. 

(a) The education of experience and tradition. 
{b) Education as a force in the development of 
society. 

20. Social intelligence. 

III. — Applied sociology or social problems. 

A partial list of the problems of society that may be treated 
will be given to show the general outline of the course, although 
it can in nowise be exhaustive. In the study of these problems 
the effect of the institutions on society should ever be kept 
before us, and the general laws of social order derived as far 



52 TJie Study of History mid Sociology. 



as it is possible. Tiiese problems should be treated liistori- 
cally, and their historical study be combined with practical 
observation in modern society. The following- list will be 
given without classification, the order followed being that 
which will suit the convenience of those studying: 

SOCIAL PROBLEMS. 

Charities in general. 

The treatment of the poor by ancient nations, especially 

by the Roman Empire. 
The treatment of the poor by the Christian Church. 
History of the English poor-laws. 
Treatment of the poor by modern benevolent societies. 
Scientific charities. 
The race problem. 
Ancient race difficulties. 
Modern race problems. 
The Negro race problem. 
The treatment and education of the Indians. 
Prohibition and sumptuary laws. 
Marriage and divorce. 
Ancient customs. 

An inquiry into the causes of the |)revalency of divorce. 
Proposed remedies for checking the evil. 
The suppression of Mormonisra. 
Corrections in general. 
Prison reform and reform schools. 
The philosophy of correction. 
The practice of correction in the United States. 
The social effects of the distribution of wealth. 
Corporations and co(")peration. 
Trusts and combinations. 
The labor problems. 
The eiirht-hour movement. 



Suggested Course of Study. 53 

Factory legislatiou. 

Duties of a muuicipality respecting gas, water, streets, 

and general comfort of the citizens. 
Scientific sanitation. 
Education. 
State education. 

Moral and religious instruction in public schools. 
Compulsory education. 
The influence of heredity. 
The etifect of education in forcing society to move in 

certain lines of development. 
The })olitical conscience. 
IV. — The history of sociology. 

The history of sociology is the history of the ideas enter- 
tained by philosophers at different times ; these ideas, combined 
and compared, represent the progress of the science since its 
foundation by Comte. The student of the history of so- 
ciology needs to have a mature judgment, and to be well 
grounded in the elements of sociology, before he attempts 
the analysis of the greatest social philosophers, as their tiieo- 
ries are not always clear, and the direction they take is not 
always the correct one. 

Examination of the Positive Philosophy of Auguste 

Comte. 
The history of the later French school of sociologists. 
The theories and studies of Herbert Spencer, and the 

progress of sociological studies in England. 
Carey's system of social science. 
Dynamical sociology, by Lester F. Ward. 
The present work of American scholars. 
The future of sociology iu universities. 
Ideal societies and Utopias. 

The theories of Plato, Fourier, Saint Simon, Marx, and 
others. 



54 TJic Study of History and Sociology. 



METHODS OF WRITING HISTORY. 

Before euteriug upon the discussion of methods of histor- 
ical study, it is well to give a little attention to past and 
present methods of writing history. It is well known that 
the first type of history-writing was furnished by the Greeks; 
and after the manner of the Greeks, it was a perfection of 
art. Herodotus and his followers sought to present a series 
of pictures representing the deeds of the Greeks. These pict- 
ures were as complete as those made by the brush of a mod- 
ern artist, and formed with as much studied effect. The 
style was uniformly flowing, narrative, sonorous and stately. 
The Greek method, or the old method, included, besides the 
beauty and dignity of language, an insight into moral and 
political affairs. It was national, as it sought to recite 
the heroic deeds of the Greeks and to recount the national 
life. Consequently, one of its chief aims was to convey 
moral and political instruction by means of graphic, weighty, 
and pleasing representation. In regard to research and a 
careful weighing of the evidence of sources, the old method 
was continually careless, and even indifferent. For a long 
time this indifference continued, and we find among the writ- 
ers of the Roman period and of the Middle Ages — indeed 
we might say even in the period of so-called modern history — 
those who were even less scrupulous as to authority, and were 
content if they wrote a pleasing narrative, in an elaborate 
style. Polybius was the first who attempted universal his- 
tory, and with it he wished to give universal lessons. He 
held that other nations than his own were worthy of con- 
sideration, and threw light upon general history. There 
were always some writers who attempted to collect and pre- 



Methods of Writing History. 55 



serve the real records of events, and to these the world owes 
much. 

This old style of history had to do with events and their 
presentation, bat with little else. It had no conception of 
the organic constitution of society, and no understanding of 
the forces that have wrought history, nor did it take the pains 
to inquire. With the modern studies in history has come a 
new style in writing, excellent in many qualities, and still 
subject to improvement in others. Its foundation principle 
is research, and a presentation of the truth free and unbiased. 
While it does not ignore form and correct style of expres- 
sion, it nevertheless makes this secondary, and it does ignore 
moral reflections and the teachings of morals by stories. But 
instead of being preoccupied with the representation of the 
past by a series of pictures, it searches for the story of the 
development of society in the great undercurrent of forces 
that move it. Perhaps it has ignored too much the desir- 
ability of a pure style. But it has by a division of labor, and by 
a specialization of historical study in which separate phases 
of history are discussed, nearly precluded the necessity for 
artistic perfection. If it is clear, and contains truth in an 
available form, there is no fear of it becoming oblivious. 
Statistics well formulated will last as long as the writings of 
Shakespeare or Homer. So, likewise, the hieroglyphics of 
the stone of Behistun, by the process of reprint will continue 
to exist forever on account of the material truth contained. 
But having said so much, it must be held that there is a happy 
mean, for true historic representation is an art, and should be 
so studied. The student whose mind is on fire will read any- 
thing for the determination of the truth, yet it is the province 
of the writer to save him time and worry by clearness and 
beauty of representation. 

The writer should use care about his style in order to make 



56 The Study of History and Sociology. 

it readable and inviting, but should not study embellishments 
at the expense of the truth. He should beware of that ar- 
tificial style which makes representation its groundwork. 
The style of Carlyle deals in phantasies and pictures, awak- 
ens our interest, presents graphic representations of great 
facts and great events, but after all it is a picture of Car- 
lyle that we are studying, a picture of the writer's mind; 
a systematized process of growling, shouting, orating and phi- 
losophizing by turns. It is worth reading, but is not good 
history. It is more like the poetry of history. So, too, in 
Macaulav we find the weight and dio;nitv of lanffuao;e, a heavy 
current of word-bearing thought carrying the reader for- 
ward. Valuable as it is to read as a literary exercise, the 
student of institutions must look elsewhere for the solution 
of social problems. To Stubbs, Green, Freeman, Waitz, 
Von Maurer and others must he go for the true interpretation 
of history. The later historical writers have brought to light 
the political institutions of the country, and have thus ful- 
filled a great need. l>ut there is a strong tendency to become 
more and more sociological in history-writing, and to take up 
the economic and the social side of life and ])resent that in 
full; in other words, to represent all of the forces of society- 
building, or the work of establishing both political and social 
institutions. As respects the modern process of writing his- 
tory, I have said that it is special in its nature. This special- 
ization has taken many different forms. One writes the 
political history, another the social, another the religious, and 
another the constitutional history of a country. Again, a 
particular period of history may be treated exhaustively, or 
even one phase of a particular period. The specialization may 
become more and more minute, until a person writes to de- 
velop a single idea of a subject. This has given rise to the 
writing of monographs, a system much in vogue by original 



Methods of Writing History. 57 



investigators. The method is vastly superior to the old method 
of writing conglomerate histories that began with Adam and 
came halting down the ages. The examination of a particular 
subject, the examination of the historical materials and the 
presentation of a concise statement of the essence of a vast 
cloud of material, is one of the chief features of modern his- 
torical methods. 



The Study of History and Sociology. 



METHODS OF STUDYING HISTORY. 



Just as a few \'ears ago everything must be scientific, and 
just as that idea has predominated in all circles of letters, so 
the word history is now being used in connection with all of 
the important branches of study. We hear of the history of 
science, of historic geology, of the history of language, the 
history of art, the history of music, and the history of gram- 
mar, or historical grammar. In other words, the historic 
method is becoming as prominent in use as the scientific 
method. As to the exact definition of any precise method 
being used, it is not safe to use any but that of historic, and 
that means to investigate the course of development of the 
subject in hand. Evolution may have scientific processes for 
its dynamics, but the story it attempts to tell is the history of 
the development of the earth. But this has arisen largely on 
account of the direct improvement in the methods of study 
and teaching of historical sciences in the colleges of America 
and Europe during the past few years. Such was the con- 
dition of the study of history in the American college up to 
a recent period, that the dull, dry conning of the facts of uni- 
versal history with the chief idea of knowing the facts of the 
world's history only to forget them, was the recognized process. 
President Adams tells us that during the first two centuries 
of the existence of Harvard College, the study of history con- 
sisted in spending one hour at eight o'clock on Saturday morn- 
ings in the hearing of compositions and the reciting of history, 
both ancient and modern. In 1839 a special chair for the 
study of history was endowed for the college, and yet it was 
not until 1870 that there was any real change in the method 
pursued of conning of history. At that time two men 



Methods of Studying History. $9 

were employed, where before one man did all of the work. 
From this time there was rapid improvement. The con- 
dition in Yale and in Columbia was not much better than that 
in Harvard ; in Yale the entire services of one man were not 
required until after 1868, to teach history, and it was not until 
1877 that another man was put into the field. 

In 1857 President White, of Cornell, instituted the study 
of history in the University of Michigan, and used the his- 
toric method employed in Germany with some modifications. 
This method was adopted in Cornell in 1870, and in Johns 
Hopkins in 1876, at the commencement of its career. With 
these beginnings a rapid progress has been made towards the 
treatment of history from a scientific standpoint. From this 
time the best institutions of America abandoned the old, 
dull process of memorizing and forgetting the facts of history 
without making good use of those facts. But this progress 
is not equal to the progress made in the old-world institutions 
in the organization and arrangement of courses and the num- 
ber of separate fields of study. The methods used are some- 
what the same. 

Modern methods of historical teaching have for their chief 
points the systematic work of the student under the intelligent 
direction of the instructor. The process involves an inves- 
tigation of materials, a search after the truth, a study of 
particular phases of historical truth, a comparison and classi- 
fication of material, and an analysis of results. History is to 
be studied because it is interesting, and to be followed for the 
truth it will yield. In all of this the facts of history must not 
be ignored, nor the careful reading of standard authorities ne- 
glected. But the instruction works upon the principle that a 
person engaged in an interesting pursuit of the truth of his- 
tory will retain by real knowledge of the subject the facts 



6o The Study of History and Sociology. 

which if learned by rote witliout understanding would soon 
leave him. 

The topical method is among the modern methods of 
teaching and study. Even the courses of instruction are 
made with reference to the great topics of history. One 
person gives a course of lectures on Greek politics, another 
on the Eeformation, another on the Renaissance, and still 
another on the French Revolution. The aim is to select the 
vital subjects of historical study and lay stress upon them, 
rather than spend the time in recounting the chronological 
events of history. But this does not preclude the necessity of 
the student's reading consecutively the connected histories of 
countries. Green's History of the English People should be 
thoroughly read, even though the special study is the con- 
stitutional history of England. In the practical class-work 
the topical method is found very useful; the selection of cer- 
tain subjects, upon which the individual is to be thoroughly 
prepared as far as his library will permit, is among the best 
processes of modern teaching. In all historical instruction 
of the first order, exclusive dependence upon the text-book 
is never to be practiced. Not tliat text-books are to be 
discarded; there should be a text-book in every undergrad- 
uate class; but there is a right and a wrong use of the text- 
book. It is the text, the outline, and nothing more; it 
represents the essentials of the subject. The wide range of 
the subject is the student's field, and the full comprehension 
of it his real object. Without these there can be but little 
that is thorough in the work of history. Opportunity should 
be given for questions, discussions, and the presentation of 
the work of students as well as that of the instructor. There 
should be a hearty cooperation among all for the advancement 
of the subject under discussion. 



Methods of Studying History. 6i 

The modern seniiuary furnishes a means of bringing to- 
gether those most interested and most advanced, for the special 
study of subjects in history or in political and in social economy. 
This method, now almost universal in the foremost institu- 
tions, is of German origin, and constitutes the germ of the 
modern method. The seminary had its origin with the class 
tauglit by Leopold von Ranke, and from that time has been 
greatly improved in Germany, and extensively adopted in 
America. The seminary represents the historical laboratory, 
and each meeting should be a clearing-house of the actual work 
done. The object of the seminary is to develop individual 
thought and investigation, and to test the same by criticism and 
discussion. Another beneficial result will be the development 
in a practical way of the best methods of study. We have lab- 
oratory work in physics, chemistry, and in most of the natural 
sciences; if history is to be taught as a scieuce, it must not ig- 
nore this great meansof investigation. Its work may not always 
be original, for the word original should be used with much care 
in its application to any study. It must be sufficiently indi- 
vidual and independent that the student may verify truth by 
his own investigratiou, and learn to exercise his own judgment 
concerning the materials before him. The undergraduate 
courses in chemistry or physics seldom go beyond this in their 
laboratory work. The seminary is an association of individ- 
uals cooperating in the pursuit of historical truth, using sci- 
entific methods in study, research, and presentation. It should 
represent the highest and best work of any department or 
group of departments working on kindred subjects. 

But whatever methods are pursued, it must be kept in mind 
that there are scientific processes involved, and scientific re- 
sults must be expected. The chief benefits to be derived 
from the study of history, or of the different branches of 
history and sociology, are similar to those of all other sciences. 



62 The Study of History and Sociology. 



BENEFITS OF HISTORICAL STUDY. 



There is a moment of power to be gained by an investiga- 
tion of tlie course of events arising from the "concurrent 
action of external circumstances and the laws of mental life." 
As a study for discipline we find the historical sciences giving 
as good satisfaction as any other branches. President Adams 
holds truly that the study of history furnishes as ample means 
for discipline as does that of language or science. It follows 
from an examination of the subject, that the same training is 
given as in other sciences — that of classification, investiga- 
tion and comparison for the sake of reaching a final conclu- 
sion. If the range of the historical sciences is not as broad 
as the range of natural sciences, their intimate relations to 
other branches of human knowledge and to the activities of 
human society furnish as good material for discipline and 
culture. But it may be said that historical sciences are not 
exact, and can therefore never furnish such valuable means of 
discipline as the study of the rational or empirical sciences. 
To this it may be said that historical theory changes no more 
than scientific theory. While the ineffaceable records of early 
history were being made, modern astronomy was astrology and 
science was mythology, or had not yet come to light. History 
is as old as man, and as recent as man. The living current of 
human thought and human action with which it has to do, is 
of the present; there is no past; it has come down to us. 
Then the truths in the historical sciences are as exact as the 
truths of the natural sciences. If it is said that critical analysis 
is exploding many of the opinions held by different authorities, 
or disproving the old records, the same may be said of science; 
and it gets closer to the truth by this, though it may do no 



Benefits of Historical Study. 63 



more than enlarge the bouudary of knowledge and remove 
the atom a little farther off. Is it possible that we may not 
obtain as correct knowledge of the conscious association of 
the atoms of organized society, human beings, which we see 
with our eyes, whose minds we understand, being images 
of our own, as the biologist by means of his microscope can 
obtain of the atom of organic or the chemist of inorganic sub- 
stance? The biologist searches for life and its conditions, 
and so does the historian, but in a different way. But the 
aggregation of the latter is greater than the aggregation of 
the former, that is, of higher grade. 

History deals after all with man, the greatest study of 
mankind, and for which all scientific investigation is carried 
on. Here are the highest ideals of study found in the life of 
man. The picture is gloomy enough in many respects, but it 
is after all the highest concern of life, and must therefore 
beget a true earnestness. The person who pursues it faith- 
fully must have a deeper sympathy for mankind, and a greater 
interest in the fate of society. It must likewise deal with 
the certain and the uncertain in organized society, and the 
probable and the improbable in the common and the uncom- 
mon affairs of life; it must examine the distinctions and dif- 
ferences of evidence, and judge as to the practical affairs of 
life. Its study tends more than science toward the life of 
man. 

But is it possible, as is often asserted, to interpret the pres- 
ent and presage the future by a careful study of the past ? 
Here, as elsewhere, we must deal in probabilities, for nothing 
can predict the future; even the most scientific laws may fail 
to bring certain results on account of being intercepted. Hu- 
manity is a continuous quantity, and a variable. If it were 
a uniformly variable quantity, the problems concerning its 
future would be as easily solved as is the determination of 



64 TJie Study of History and Sociology. 

the^ orbit of a planet when the section of the arc is given 
Human society is an irregular curve, whose turnings are con- 
stantly made by obstructions and counter forces. Its general 
trend can be discerned, and that is all. But returning again 
to the subject of discipline for the conduct of life, is not that 
the best means of discipline which develops judgment in the 
affairs of life? Does not the man in the practical affairs of 
life deal in probal)ilities? And is it not a mere conjecture on 
his part, of judgment of human action and of circumstances, 
that must determine his course? Will not a continual study 
of the judgments of men and society tend to strengthen the 
basis of one's own judgment ? It is a study of human society 
as it is, not as it ought to be. One studies relations as they 
aie, surveys the field of truth and j)robabilities with the prac- 
tical eye of a business man, and grasps not one fact only, but 
the continuity of events and their essential relations. 

But the strongest reason to be urgetl lor the study of the 
historical sciences, is that it prepares the student to deal with 
the present problems of society, and of the politics of the 
country. The study of history is something more than the 
perusal of the story of the past, or more than the bare at- 
tainment of the facts. A person may be able to recite the 
contents of historical charts and the epitomes of universal 
history without having accomplished the object of historical 
research. The study of history has for its ultimate object a 
better understanding of the structui'e and functions of present 
organic society. Its entire tendency in the best sense is so- 
ciological. The recital of the movements of armies, of the 
rise and fall of kings, of the changes in government and the 
growth and decay of nations, is only a means to an end — that 
of understanding man in society. Tlie customs, the laws, the 
institutions, and the life of the people as well as their rights 
and duties, are the chief objects of study. And this study, if 



Benefits of Historical Study. 65 

carried on properly, and continuously, cannot fail to inspire the 
student to do and to act in the administration and legislation 
of his own country, either as a sovereign or as an agent. All 
general culture must subserve to give to the town, the com- 
munity, the state or the nation — indeed, to human society at 
large — the benefit of individual study and investigation. 
We feel a natural aversion toward the raiser who hoards his 
gold, and will use it neither for the benefit of society nor him- 
self; but there is essentially little difference in the case of 
a selfish life that hoards knowledge and never uses it for the 
benefit of those around him. To obtain truth is considered 
noble, but its proper use is the real test of its value, and there 
may be as much selfishness manifested in the handling of the 
truth as in the handling of gold. Our happiness, our misery, 
our life, our all, are fast becoming dependent upon general 
society. The happiness of our fellow-beings is our own hap- 
piness. No one gets an education by his own efforts alone; 
DO one becomes rich wholly by his own efforts; in each case it 
is only an ability to seize the opportunities and take advantage 
of the materials which society offers. The most hopeful signs 
of educational progress are its tendencies for the education of 
the whole people: a return of what is obtained to general 
irood throu<rh a wise and beautiful utility. But in all of this 
it must be remembered that the chief utility is in character- 
building. Nothing is to sacrifice character, for indeed self- 
culture, man-culture, is the highest aim of life. And this 
recognizes the improvements of society in every way. 

The historical sciences may not be more useful than other 
branches, but they bring man face to flice with the problems 
of human society. They acquaint him with its institutions 
and its methods of government; they prepare him for proper 
citizenship in a free country; and just now our country is 
troubled more about proper legislation and proper adminis- 



66 T/ie Study of History and Sociology. 

tration than about the accumulation of wealth or the advance 
of industries. 

Especially is it true that in a state university great atten- 
tion should be given to the historical sciences. The institu- 
tion exists for the good of the cotnmunity, not to dole out 
charity to individuals; it seeks a return, and justly so, for 
everything it does for the ]>eopIe in the service of individuals 
as otficers or citizens of the state. As industries develoji and 
become diversified, so, too, does the government become more 
com})lex. Meanwhile society becomes more closely bound to- 
gether. We are more and more dependent upon our fellow- 
creatures. Xo one becomes rich or great these days by his 
own efforts, for the lines of society are drawn more closely 
together. But as the state seeks its own good, it seeks the 
good of individuals as the benefits to the social organism 
continue to accrue. 

It is the province of the state to forward those studies that 
best fit its citizens for service in society — that is, its own 
service. An in(]uiry into the problems of society, a knowl- 
edge of the constituent elements of society and their func- 
tions, and a desire on the part of intelligent people to bear 
the responsibilities of organized society, are our oidv safe- 
guards against evils in our midst. 



Preparatory Study of History. 67 



THE STUDY OF HISTORY PREPARATORY TO EN- 
TRANCE TO THE UNIVERSITY. 



The study of history preparatory to entrance to the uni- 
versity should receive attention at this point. After a consid- 
eration of the foregoing analysis, it will be more readily 
understood what is needed in such preparation, and it is better 
that it be shown in this way than by general or special rules 
for the government of preparatory work. The two great 
hindrances to successful preparation for the study of history 
in the university are the lack of time to prepare and the lack 
of facilities. There is but a short time to be devoted to the 
study of history in any of our high schools. It is not possible 
in this limited time to go over the entire field of history with 
exactness. The knowledge of facts is essential to the proper 
study of history, but the great art of the study of history is to 
know what to do with the facts. A few hints may be of some 
assistance to those preparing students to enter a university. 
The first is that it is to be noted that those students who 
memorize the contents of a text-book much condensed, for the 
sake of knowing what happened at this particular time regard- 
ing the history of the nation, are apt to forget the majority of 
the facts when they are needed for use; and those that they do 
remember are usually misplaced, or are so hazy as to be useless. 
The secret of learning history or teaching it to a young person, 
is to arouse interest of the right sort. For this purpose there 
must be a wider reading than a single text-book. Enough of 
the subject-matter must be presented, that the student will 
remember dates by the sequence of events rather than by a 
pure effort of the memory. In other words, the memory will 
claim and hold all that belongs to it or is useful to it if the 



68 TJie Study of History and Sociology. 

attention and interest are sufficiently aroused. For this pur- 
pose careful readinj^ with conversation about the subjects is 
the better way. Short stories told by the teacher of the im- 
portant epochs may be made attractive. The various com- 
pendiums and lists of facts should be avoided as special studies 
only so far as they assist in summing up the work already 
accomplished. These should not be ignored in their proj)er 
use. ]^ut it must be thoroughly impressed that chronology 
is a small })art of history; it represents the boundary of the 
survey, the wire fence around a field, but is not the lield. It 
is worth while to attend to it, but its use must not be mis- 
applied. Then the study of history to be useful anywhere 
must rise above the bare desire of the student to receive a high 
mark from his teacher. Fewer marks and greater interest 
must be the incentive of all healthful study. A person 
must rise above the idea of "passing" if he obtains any- 
thing of [)ermanent value in historical study. A person 
may be able to pass by cramming a certain amount of his- 
tory unwillingly, and may pa.s.9, but the history obtained will 
leave him as quickly as it came. It is practically worthless. 
The best that can be done, consideriuo; the situation, is to 
study a text-book with some life in it ; one that suggests the life 
of the i)eople ; that presents in a pleasing way the history of 
the institutions of the people; that minimizes dates and mag- 
nifies the development of society. The teacher has but one 
rule, namely, to awaken interest and to give wise direction, 
and, if we have the same interest in it, knowledge will be as 
readily remembered as the history of our own lives. Then all 
dates will be as landmarks, and will be stakes set to mark the 
onward flow of historical truth. Many years ago, in France, 
it was thought that there was a direct connection between the 
memory and the cuticle, so that when it was desired that a ^ 
boy should remember an important fact, the master pro- 



Preparatory Study of History. 69 

ceeded to excite his cuticle with a rod. It would scarcely 
do to follow this rule iu Kausas, but the philosophy is ours : 
arouse an interest, secure the whole attention, and the memory 
will act with precision. We know from our own experience 
that little, unimportant events remain in the mind, while great, 
important ones pass out. It is because our minds were aroused 
in the one case and dormant in the other. Give the memory 
a chance, clear the rubbish away, arouse the attention, and the 
memory will care for its own work without being goaded or 
accused of incompetency. 

One thing should be emphasized, namely, that tlic bare 
memory of facts and events furnishes poor food for the mind. 
Nothing should be sacrificed to verbal expression, but a 
knowledge of the truth should be obtained by readings, dis- 
cussions and recitals, until it takes shape in the student's mind 
so that he may give his own version. To avoid a sacrifice of 
substance to form, students should be taught to find out things 
for themselves. History is a problem, not a story, and the 
pupil's solution is the one sought ; the teacher may direct and 
verify. Consequently iu all teaching, it nuist not be forgotten 
that the object of historical study is to educate, and not to 
fill the mind with dry, indigestible facts. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



018 462 373 




